SOME CAUTIONARY WORDS ON PR.
I have followed your deliberations with interest. They seem to be
long on subjective values - e.g. "fairness" - and short on
objective consequences. It would seem your chosen path is towards
some sort of modified PR so I would like to offer three or four
comments and one recommendations.
-
PR gives too much power to political party power brokers as they
set the list of candidates. Consider that recently Italy, by
referendum, voted by more than 90% to go from PR to FPTP. Why?
Because it was seen as a major cause of political corruption.
-
An inevitable consequence of PR will be the emergence of
regional and ethnic parties. On the national scene, a Western Bloc.
On the provincial scene, a First Nations Party. Those who have
followed the circus surrounding various Federal Liberal nominations
can easily imagine other special interest groups coming forward.
There exists in Switzerland, a political party devoted to the
interests of the St. Bernard dog.
-
Minority government is portrayed as a positive outcome. Ha.
Watch the outcome of the Federal election.
-
PR is incompatible with fixed election dates. You cannot stick
the electorate with a full 4 years of failing coallitions. If you
want PR, you have to abandon fixed election dates.
But enough. Mark Twain observed that there are some ideas which
are neat, plausible and wrong. PR is one of them.
Finally, a recommendation. Once PR is put in place, it becomes the
self interest of political parties (as opposed to the electorate)
to maintain PR. Put in a recommendation that in the second election
after a change in electoral system, the choice whether to continue
with PR or return to FPTP is a mandatory referendum question.
PS. The endless power brokering required by PR needs a President to
manage the process and provide continuity. Are we prepared to have
photogenic but unelected individuals such as the Governor General
and Lieutenant Governor in charge?
|
levelCMS